“…By contrast, indirect ethnic mobilization tends to occur during more settled times and especially in pluralistic systems where no party is dominant enough to win power on its own. In these cases, political elites employ ethnic wedge issues ‘to splinter the support of a key opponent by an ethnic issue appeal to members of the opponent's coalition’ (Gadjanova 2017:486). This contradiction of the caretaker turned offender was captured in Chinua Achebe's The Trouble with Nigeria : I was an eye‐witness to that momentous occasion when Chief Obafemi Awolowo ‘stole’ the leadership of Western Nigeria from Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe in broad daylight on the floor of the Western House of Assembly and sent the great Zik scampering back to the Niger ‘whence [he] came’.…”
Ethnicity is regarded as the greatest threat to national attachment by both politicians and scholars. However, ethnicity is only one of the many forms of identification which could potentially clash with national attachment. This study therefore examines the relationship between ethnicity and national attachment by asking a general question: what is the impact of alternative group loyalties on national attachment? To answer this question, I develop a measure of national attachment drawing on several sentiments oriented towards the state. Using a survey of 996 university students, I find varying degrees of intensity of the selected identities. Specifically, while descriptive analysis supports recent reports of the declining salience of ethnicity in Ghana, inferential analysis contradicts theoretical expectations that the increasing salience of ethnicity would negatively affect national attachment. Conceptually, it is possible to map the various identities onto a collectivistic-individualistic scale. Individualistic orientations undermine national attachment, while collectivistic orientations boost it. I argue that rather than being contradictory impulses, ethnicity and national attachment are both underlain by the same collectivistic orientation, pointing to the importance of social rootedness. I deploy qualitative and historical data to give substance and texture to these findings.
“…By contrast, indirect ethnic mobilization tends to occur during more settled times and especially in pluralistic systems where no party is dominant enough to win power on its own. In these cases, political elites employ ethnic wedge issues ‘to splinter the support of a key opponent by an ethnic issue appeal to members of the opponent's coalition’ (Gadjanova 2017:486). This contradiction of the caretaker turned offender was captured in Chinua Achebe's The Trouble with Nigeria : I was an eye‐witness to that momentous occasion when Chief Obafemi Awolowo ‘stole’ the leadership of Western Nigeria from Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe in broad daylight on the floor of the Western House of Assembly and sent the great Zik scampering back to the Niger ‘whence [he] came’.…”
Ethnicity is regarded as the greatest threat to national attachment by both politicians and scholars. However, ethnicity is only one of the many forms of identification which could potentially clash with national attachment. This study therefore examines the relationship between ethnicity and national attachment by asking a general question: what is the impact of alternative group loyalties on national attachment? To answer this question, I develop a measure of national attachment drawing on several sentiments oriented towards the state. Using a survey of 996 university students, I find varying degrees of intensity of the selected identities. Specifically, while descriptive analysis supports recent reports of the declining salience of ethnicity in Ghana, inferential analysis contradicts theoretical expectations that the increasing salience of ethnicity would negatively affect national attachment. Conceptually, it is possible to map the various identities onto a collectivistic-individualistic scale. Individualistic orientations undermine national attachment, while collectivistic orientations boost it. I argue that rather than being contradictory impulses, ethnicity and national attachment are both underlain by the same collectivistic orientation, pointing to the importance of social rootedness. I deploy qualitative and historical data to give substance and texture to these findings.
“…In an effort to reach out to the Kalenjin, Masai and Coastal voters who were seen as the main "swing" communities in 2007 (Gadjanova, 2017b;J. Horowitz, 2016;Oloo, 2010), Odinga made "majimbo" (Swahili for federalism) central to his 2007 election campaign.…”
Section: T a B L E 1 A Typology Of Cross-ethnic Appeals In Plural Societiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Horowitz, 2016;Oloo, 2010), Odinga made "majimbo" (Swahili for federalism) central to his 2007 election campaign. The Kalenjin and Maasai, considered to be the "original" or "indigenous" settlers of the country's Rift Valley, have rallied behind politicians who have promised to reinstate indigenous land rights and to evict the Kikuyu and other "settler" groups from the Rift (Boone, 2011;Gadjanova, 2017b;Lynch, 2011). Odinga's promise for land redistribution as part of a broader framework of a devolved government was highly credible to the Kalenjin, Masai and Coastal voters in 2007 because he had led a successful constitution referendum on the issue in 2005.…”
Section: T a B L E 1 A Typology Of Cross-ethnic Appeals In Plural Societiesmentioning
Whether and how parties reach across ethnic lines matters for the quality of democracy, the state of interethnic relations and substantive minority representation in plural societies. Existing explanations have focused on how politicians facing electoral incentives to seek broader support attempt to either redefine or transcend ethnic identities, but have overlooked the various ways, in which candidates from one ethnic community often directly address the ethno-political interests, concerns and demands of other communities whose votes are being courted. To address this gap, we introduce the concept and develop a typology of crossethnic appeals in plural democracies. Drawing on primary research in India and Kenya-two countries with salient ethnic divisions and ethnic party systems-we show that cross-ethnic appeals are common, follow the logic of our typology, and can result in increased resources and representation for some electorally pivotal minorities, even going beyond what coethnic politicians have offered. The article contributes to the emerging academic literature on how parties foster cross-ethnic linkages in plural societies.Our argument has implications for ethnic boundaries, the structure of political cleavages and the substantive representation of minorities in multiethnic states.
“…Such rhetorical “constructions of grievance” can effectively spur collective action in the name of common identities, even when conflicts have ostensibly material origins as with disputes over land or natural resources (Aspinall, 2007; Boone, 2011; Lynch, 2011). Challengers can also formulate “ethnic wedge issues”—policy positions with clearly-defined ethnic winners and losers targeting aggrieved minorities within incumbents’ coalitions—in order to peel some voters away (Gadjanova, 2017).…”
Section: Between Issue Salience and Relative Credibility: How Candidamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Ghana, the two main parties (the National Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress) have frequently switched positions on the Dagbon Chieftaincy dispute: urging for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution when in power, and fanning grievances and accusing the government of neglecting the issue when in opposition (Tonah, 2012). In Zambia—another highly-diverse presidential regime with salient ethnic cleavages - former president Michael Sata (an ethnic Bemba) opposed the Barotseland Agreement giving autonomy to the country’s Lozi tribe when in government prior to 2002, supported it in 2008 and 2012 when he was the main opposition presidential candidate, and again opposed it when elected president in 2012 (Gadjanova, 2017).…”
Section: Evidence From Interviews Country Case Studies and Additionmentioning
This paper explains how presidential candidates in Africa’s highly diverse states appeal across ethnic lines when ethnic identities are salient, but broader support is needed to win elections. I argue that election campaigns are much more bottom-up and salience-oriented than current theories allow and draw on the analysis of custom data of campaign appeals in Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, as well as interviews with party strategists and campaign operatives in Ghana and Kenya to demonstrate clear patterns in presidential candidates’ cross-ethnic outreach. Where ethnic salience is high, incumbents offer material incentives and targeted transfers to placate supporters, challengers fan grievances to split incumbents’ coalitions, and also-rans stress unity and valence issues in the hope of joining the winner. The research contributes to our understanding of parties’ mobilization strategies in Africa and further clarifies where and how ethnic divisions are politicized in elections in plural societies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
